The Rightful Place of Science?http://cspo.events.asu.edu
Tempe, May 16-19, 2010Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:22:59 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3Tabletop Agenda Items ready for your commentshttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=776
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=776#commentsMon, 02 Aug 2010 21:22:59 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=776 [ Read More ]]]>The CSPO conference The Rightful Place of Science? included Tabletop Salons – where the primary work of the conference took place. Topics were submitted and led by conference attendees. The salons generated items to be part of the developing research, education and outreach agenda to enhance linkages between scientific and technological research and beneficial societal outcomes.

These agenda items are now being posted and we invite you to continue the conversation by providing your feedback, critiques and ideas. More items are likely to be posted, so check back often to have your say.

Your ongoing ideas and opinions are important as we move forward. So, keep the conversation going!

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7760T18 Participatory Technology Assessment in the 21st Century: Including the Lay Public in Scientific Decision Makinghttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=799
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=799#commentsMon, 02 Aug 2010 21:20:33 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=799Led by: David Sittenfeld, Museum of Science, Boston
Scientists, policymakers, and laypeople all have crucial roles and different perspectives in making decisions around issues in science and technology that have broad societal impacts. Although we all make decisions on technology every day as part of our daily lives, efforts are increasing on a number of fronts to give laypeople a formalized voice in policy discussions in the United States. This Tabletop Salon will describe a number of existing international and domestic models to engage the public in substantive policy-based conversations around emerging topics in science and technology, and consider what their potential impacts might be if they were employed broadly in the United States. A new network that unites universities, science centers, and nonpartisan governmental institutions in developing these programs on a national and global scale will be outlined. Participants will discuss how the field can contribute to and improve these efforts.

Points brought upin the first session:

People were curious as to whether governmental clients will take results of participatory technology assessment (pTA) seriously.

There was discussion of various kinds of clients/consumers for pTA exercises.

People seemed to agree on the importance of a strict framework for credible results.

People talked about the need to include and clearly define the role of industry and commercial interests in the formal process so that it does not attempt to dominate the later pTA exercise.

We identified various topics that would be ripe for these kinds of discussions, e.g., sustainability, geoengineering, synbio, nano, water, food system, human enhancement.

People talked about the importance of the process for developing and vetting content.

People also discussed possible avenues for broader impact and public outreach.

Consensus model is just one and people talked about hybrid or alternative models, particularly in cases where topic is more anticipatory or less controversial.

Points brought up in the second session:

There was discussion about whether or not the recommendations from a pTA exercise should be binding, especially if it is done by a network outside of the government.

How do we translate or apply recommendations generated at the national level to the state and local levels?

Should any technology be the subject of a pTA exercise or should it be done only for emerging technologies before their development trajectories are institutionally entrenched?

There was discussion about adaptability of the pTA process to address the demographics differences; the right number of participants to establish a representative group; number of face to face deliberation sessions; honorarium for participants.

Does pTA need proof of concept demonstration, a pTA for pTA?

How do we test the validity of the outcome of a pTA process with the overall population in general?

How do you bring citizens into the pTA processes that use different space and mediums for discussions? For global exercises, how can linguistic differences be overcome?

Since not all science and technology issues are national or global, how do you use pTA for local and regional issues?

What models are available for pTA governance? How do you ensure adequate input and buy-in from experts, policymakers and the civil society?

Suggested Topics for Future Research:

Trust: Can pTA be used to repair the fractured relationship between experts and the general citizenry on issues such as climate change?

How can pTA help connect global concerns to local concerns making broader concerns meaningful to the average citizen?

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7990T15 Beyond 700ppmhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=790
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=790#commentsWed, 14 Jul 2010 23:56:31 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=790Led by: Lewis Gilbert
While climate science continues to founder on a lee shore, the question remains: How can we achieve the best possible future for humans on Earth? In Herbert Simon’s natural / artificial framework, this question is unambiguously artificial and hence elements of human intention are inextricably entwined in both its formulation and the in the processes of its answers. Following further, it seems likely that the artificial sciences (disciplines?) — e.g. social science, engineering, and I would expand to the humanities as well — will become more relevant as time passes.

This Salon will focus on that evolution:

How can the artificial disciplines avoid the pitfalls that have bedeviled climate science in recent decades?

How can variances in culture and geography be accounted for as we strive to govern ourselves on local, regional and global scales toward a better future?

Social science is gaining increasing importance. What can social scientists do to avoid conundrum that climate change scientists are facing? The scale of the problem matters. How do we determine the appropriate scale of the project?

Solutions need to be global; management of CO2 is highly important; global protocols need to be addressed; political purposes abound.

Research agenda: how locked in are we to a political paradigm; how do we avoid being stuck in a rut?

We have new responsibilities for the planet; the unstable planet we’ve created; pollution has downstream effects; how do new technologies hurt or aid the problem?

Financial considerations affect these issues; no political will to make changes currently exist; political failure to act.

Technology provides solutions to issues; some of which can’t be solved. Discussion of Dan Sarewitz’s paper on ozone and literacy. Literacy is “contacts dependent.”

What do we do now to make things better for the future? Thought experiment? Think & do? Present and preserve possible futures. Minimize threats, enhance strengths, encourage discourse; develop expectations.

Discussion of scenario development. Cynthia drew axis labeling each one, suggestion of four “worlds” resulting from discussion. Lewis has this document, along with his chart.

What is the place of science? Science sets up narratives. Role of science is to hold up a set of ideas to address. There are leverage points for unlocking over-determined systems. Over-determined policy apparatus. Predisposed to particular outcomes.

Education and outreach are natural results (engagement and knowledge) of scenario development. Must be assured that all stakeholders participate in this exercise to have all peoples represented on a global scale.

Result of discussion:

Large scale scenario development project is needed on this subject

Analysis of scenarios needs to be developed

Policy implications of scenarios should be developed

Strategic Plan with actionable items must be developed and acted upon

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7900T14 Managing for Environmental and Socioeconomic Resiliencehttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=787
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=787#commentsWed, 14 Jul 2010 23:49:49 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=787Led by: Nancy Dahl-Tacconi, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia
Description: How do we define environmental and socioeconomic resilience and where do we find the information base to support it?

Agenda:

“Improve relevance and uptake of science and sustainability and resilience for decision makers by:

developing and implementing strategies for collaborative research design (including partnership between scientists & decision makers at various scales—e.g. government, NGOs, business, local communities)

generating and implementing strategic communication strategies (for research schools / institutes) that are developed collaboratively with input from researchers, professional communicators and representatives from decision-making bodies.”

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7870T10 Artists and Scientists: The Fundamental Exchangehttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=785
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=785#commentsWed, 14 Jul 2010 23:12:52 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=785Led by: Liz Lerman and Elizabeth Johnson, Liz Lerman Dance Exchange
Description: The last few years have witnessed a renaissance of interest in the longstanding connections that exist between science and art. Join a conversation about the roles that scientists and artists can play in one another‘s work and the potential for innovation that exists in collaboration. Expect a spirited exchange touching on shared process and methods, the nature of discovery, analysis and intuition, and how we prepare the public for the future. Hosting the Tabletop Salon will be Liz Lerman and Elizabeth Johnson of Liz Lerman Dance Exchange, whose recent ventures at the intersection of science and art have taken them to labs, classrooms, science museums, medical centers, the contemporary dance stage, the Space Telescope Science Institute, and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Notes:

Use of dance and other forms of creative expression in teaching will help lead to differentiated outcomes

DICHOTOMY Problem = we engage in the multiplicity of the world yet we tend to create false dichotomies (PLURALITY OF VIEWS)

NEED FOR SCIENTISTS AND ARTISTS TO REALLY ENGAGE

Great example of how art can be useful: creative act of putting information into a metaphor helps individuals remember that information

Art can elicit new perspectives by allowing the information-consumer to see that that already know in a different form, unleashing intellectual creativity and passion

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ART?

Communicating

Transcending

Spectrum of Possibility: artistic practice adds VALUE; allows the system to become more nimble through its ability to live in multiple worlds

MAJOR OBSTACLES:

Nature of changing the perceptions of ideas

Gaining legitimacy: artists don’t get the same automatic legitimacy as scientist possibly because its outcomes are not data driven but rather determined by a mode of thinking and the imagination

Tension between the need for both generalists and specialists

Spectrum of Possibility: artistic practice adds value by allowing the system to become more nimble through its ability to live in multiple worlds

Moving Forward/Checking Out:

Create a non-profit focused on the intersection of art and science

Break down the barriers to make art and science more accessible

Specialization of art and science

Embrace a rewards system matching art and science

Determine the obstacles for gaining legitimacy and excellence

Create a place to highlight examples of success in the fusion of art and science

List all the available resources on this intersection; possibly an interactive website for what’s out there

Influence policy decision-making; great deal of data and research illustrating the positive outcomes of art education yet schools still cut art and gym programs

Create a map of science, art and religion to help break these false barriers

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7850T7 The Problem with Statistical Modelinghttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=781
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=781#commentsWed, 14 Jul 2010 23:06:26 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=781Led by: Samuel Western
Description: Computer modeling has played a critical role in American policy since the Manhattan Project. The concept quickly leapt from military to scientific and economic projects. Limits to Growth, published in 1972, used computer modeling. Yet scientists discovered a problem with Limits: the models it employed were written by humans and prey to subjective interpretations. Since publication of the Limits of Growth, the world’s population has nearly doubled. We will rely on computer modeling to make sure the economies of scarcity don’t become too real. Yet we hear of snafus with industry or policy makers who either rely too heavily on models or ignore them.

1996: “I believe nicotine is not addictive.” (R.J. Reynolds had used computer modeling to show additives could make nicotine even more addictive)

2008: Arjun Murti of Goldman Sachs, with access to superior computer modeling, predicts that oil would soon hit $200 a barrel. Within eight months it drops to $39.43.

2009: In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models. Gerald Dickens, Rice University.

2009. Basic finance, Mr. Greenspan? “The current crisis has demonstrated that neither bank regulators, nor anyone else, can consistently and accurately forecast…if the financial system as a whole will seize up.”

Is computer modeling getting more or less accurate? Is it gaining in importance? Will errors carry increasingly greater consequences? Or are we facing an old problem merely in need of adjusting? Moi? I’m a writer specializing in economic history. I’m particularly interested in big economic trends and behavioral economics. As scientific solutions become, by necessity, increasingly a part of our social milieu, I’m curious how ideas succeed or fail in influencing public policy.

Notes:
As global population grows and solutions become increasingly complex, so do our computer models that society uses to reduce risk. These computer models have now reached the levels of complexity so acute that only modern augurs – the elect – can understand them. This exclusivity can lead to problems, including transparency.

Models are just a grand projection of which, historically, our cognitive (and occasionally neurotic) selves have been very fond. People have employed entrails or the placement of stars to predict their future. Computer modeling is just an extension of that.

We are, rightly or wrongly, increasingly relying on statistical computer models. This means a more complex level of interpretation. Models have a multiplicity of purposes, not least of which is to help us understand what we don’t understand.

We can use more transparency in models that have a systemic impact, if only to a select few, like the SEC or some sort of watchdog that can question the reliance on leaning a certain model. Perhaps a website that describes how various models work? This website would include describing the intellectual heritage of the model and list major funders. It might ascribe the model in a social setting.

A growing world population gives the old bromide, “there are no models of human behavior,” a little more credence.

Challenges:

Cultural disposition to look for a single answer. How do we challenge this?

What is the rightful place of statistical models in science?

Who is interpreting the interpreters? Do we indeed need watchdogs? How do inject more transparency into a more cryptic but important part of science? How important is it the public understand highly specialized models?

Do we need to do more basic research, both in the lab and on ground (or space or the ocean) before we start writing models?

Very few incentives for scientists for having the public understand.

Getting the public to understand (scientists to be more humble and honest about):

The difference between the explanatory and predictive purposes/functions of a model.

Not all models are created equal.

A lack of modesty perforates the authority of climate science.

You can demonstrate global warming without the prediction models!

Issue of consequence, if we failed to heed a model, what are the consequences? What are issues of accountability?

Even if your models were perfect, we have agencies that don’t know how to use the data.

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7810T12 What Counts as Quality Work for Science and Technology Policy Research?http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=763
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=763#commentsFri, 02 Jul 2010 20:00:21 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=763Led by: Samuel Evans, Harvard UniversityDescription: There is much talk about how scientists and engineers need to be more aware of the various publics that are impacted by their work (and which also impact their work). There are traditional methods for determining what constitutes good science or good engineering, and those metrics still seem to stand, though such things as ethics and stakeholder awareness may now be added on top of them. But what about the researchers who look at science and technology policy? What process do we go through to determine what counts as quality work in our field? It is not necessarily the standard number of academic articles in top journals, nor the prestigious post at a top university. And yet, these are the traditional measures of success for posts in the academic community. As young researchers and practitioners, do we hurt our chances of ever being established in the academy by our desire to focus our efforts more on policy engagement?

The one idea for research

Q: What is the measure of “quality” of STP research when considering the rightful place of science?A: The degree to which it is useful.

Useful research is always defined in relation to an expected social use or goal. In a plural society, however, there cannot be assumed unanimity of goals (except for trivial cases). Useful can then be defined differently according to different normative theories of “social order” and the “good life”. However, if history taught us something it is to distrust anyone who claims to posses the absolute best normative theory, the absolute moral truth. Useful cannot be defined then in any unique, complete, and unequivocal sense. There is no bliss point where the social function is maximized. Useful research is inherently contextual and contested, and thus any definition is heuristic. Hence, we can adopt rules of thumb to recognize what is useless. This will render not an unequivocal conception of usefulness but at least will help to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Example Rules of Thumb:

The “What To”: Don’t speak truth to power, speak “defiance to power.” STP research is useful (non-useless) when it challenges the discourse of the establishment. If political power is articulated in certain established discourses, challenging the assumptions, premises, or the logic of those discourses is a sign that we are doing something good. If we can identify the discourse that wields the greatest power in any domain, attacking it is “useful.” E.g. challenge presumed goals of consensus such as “development,” “competitiveness,” challenge dogmas like “objective science,” challenge long standing “institutions” and even sacrosanct terms as “democracy,” “the inalienability of private property,” etc.

The “How To”: STP research is useful (non-useless) when it advances the aforementioned challenges, but when it does so seriously. Learned criticism. Historically aware criticisms. Context nuanced criticism. Not jejune, half-baked, repetition of theories or ideological mantras. Hesitate if your criticism fits nicely a well-established ideological position. Hesitate if your criticism becomes popular.

Corollary of the above: If we try to represent “quality of research” with quantitative indicators we undermine the meaning of the term quality as a guide to do research. This is because by seeking to quantify quality we either reaffirm the values of the establishment (current standard measures of quality) or simply create a new establishment with its own protected class (those who meet the new quantitative standards of quality).

The “For What”: give voice to the disenfranchised, and provide tools to reconfigure the established power structure

The one idea for education
Proselytize! Speak up the critique, discuss the critique, rethink the critique. Let us start with our own departments and our own universities. Our students and colleagues. Our friends and family.

When asking about the rightful place of science, education should focus on questioning the power structures in place within the policy world. Such questions include:

Who is in power?

How is science used to further particular policies?

How do the established institutions direct scientific inquiry?

What ends are being served by that inquiry?

What are the tools that would allow for a society to reshape those with the power?

Science in policy is not speaking truth to power, but rather using one form of power to shape another.

The one idea for outreach
Outreach should not be a one-way street (from us to them). If that is outreach we advise against it. What we need is to create spaces of dialogue, where we create an inviting space for the others to also reach for us, where the exchange of ideas and the debate is both ways. Our proselytism should be a constant engagement with others by means of which we review our convictions.

Technical Note: Anticipating the criticism that we all live and think within certain discursive formations and thus this advice could be self-serving. It may be so only if we “justify” a discourse that lends strength to the powerful. That is why the advice is to challenge that which we identified to be comparatively a powerful discourse, whether its the discourse that justifies our powerful tribe or that which denounces the tribe that oppresses the other.

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7631T9 Putting Anticipatory Governance Into Practicehttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=756
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=756#commentsFri, 02 Jul 2010 19:52:58 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=756Led by: Mark Philbrick, University of California, Berkeley
Description: The idea of anticipatory governance implies an experimental and adaptive approach to policy and strategy. How can we begin putting it into practice with respect to emerging technologies? Specifically, what kinds of steps could the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) take now to improve its capacities for foresight and engagement, and to feed the insights gained thereby into its research strategies, and participating agency policies? Further, are there other points of constructive intervention beyond the NNI? For example, does the newly funded ARPA-E program within the Department of Energy constitute a similar opportunity? If so, what steps or measures might we take, and how should implementation proceed?

Research Agenda

What mix of institutional models will be most effective in implementing anticipatory governance, including, but not limited to:

T8 Science and Political-Social Perceptions
Led by: Jeff Williams, Science and Public Policy Journal
Description: How does US society and how does the US political system view science? Is it a monolithic entity or seen as moldable or variable, and responsive to change across a range of subject areas? Does science need to represent itself in these interactions, or should it serve only as a neutral source of knowledge?

T16 Science in Situ: Doing Science in Contexts Characterized by Political Complexity & Social Inequality
Led by: Paul Hirsch, Syracuse University, and Helmut Hirsch, University of Albany, SUNY
Description: Research often takes place in social settings characterized by political complexity and social inequality, and scientists – consciously or unconsciously – become players in a larger set of dynamics that are not captured within the bounds of their research questions and methodologies. Even scientists wishing to be more reflective of the social implications of their work find themselves leaving the terrain in which they are comfortable, to enter realms within which they have no particular qualifications beyond that of an ordinary citizen. What is a responsible scientist to do? This Salon will be led by a policy scientist who has written about the ways in which scientific research in socially complex settings can go awry – specifically research on lead paint and its abatement – and a biologist identifying lead-dependent genetic changes in fruit flies, who just re-entered the domain of human research. After elucidating examples of the quandaries of scientists contemplating the relationship between research and its socio-political context, we will draw on the experiences and insights of participants to develop a suite of strategies (both at the individual and the institutional level) that can support an appropriate place for science in the world.

Notes:

What can our community do to move this topic forward? Who would we want to interact with to share our broader views on this topic for the rightful place of science?

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

Can’t say everything to everyone: Must consider who we are communicating to

Strategic disengagement

How can we achieve this goal?

Communication: two-way; how to appreciate the complexity

Education

Articulate the outcomes associated with various value sets

Themes:

Hubris and Arrogance versus Humility

Science over-reaching its bounds – and promising more than it delivers (e.g. CA stem cell research promises results within five years)

Major Consensus Agenda Item:

In moments of engagement between scientists and media/decision-makers, how well do structures and institutions get the most out of science and keep science in its rightful place?

Teach science to span socio-technological MOMENTS OF ENGAGEMENT

The role of the scientist must EVOLVE (transparent values, say what you know and what you don’t know, etc)

Other Agenda Items:

Change National Education Standards: Science instruction for grades K-12 will be 75% genuine inquiry and 25% other areas (concepts, definitions, reading); also, all science is taught by specialist instructors at all levels

Basic science education in public policy and administration training as well as basic communication training in science

University should play a role in creating a base for framing and contextualizing science

Continuous education on opposing viewpoints for all stakeholders to diminish complacency

Increase the number of collaborative forums to encourage the growth of diverse networks

Teach science in elementary school: focus on the fun of scientific inquiry

Research the impact and outcomes of different kinds of communication

Influence the discourse in on this topic to recognize that science is NOT monolithic

Analyze the ability of a political institution to process information provided by people qualified as having scientific expertise to identify how that information is received and utilized

Scientists should:

Recognize when less is more

Develop processes to determine relevant role: discern whether or not the topic is controversial and act accordingly, seek out continuous education and training

Receive media training to learn how to covey a clear message, how to determine their appropriate role in the discourse, and how to speak English not just technical jargon

Strategic contraction of science and education: build on their strengths, test out how to communicate complexity, and become more transparent in their values

Learn to seek and reflect on their work

Learn to speak in clear plain English about their work

(These two salons met together on the final day)

T8 Science and Political-Social Perceptions

Led by: Jeff Williams, Science and Public Policy Journal

How does US society and how does the US political system view science? Is it a monolithic entity or seen as moldable or variable, and responsive to change across a range of subject areas? Does science need to represent itself in these interactions, or should it serve only as a neutral source of knowledge?

T16 Science in Situ: Doing Science in Contexts Characterized by Political Complexity & Social Inequality

Led by: Paul Hirsch, Syracuse University, and Helmut Hirsch, University of Albany, SUNY

Research often takes place in social settings characterized by political complexity and social inequality, and scientists – consciously or unconsciously – become players in a larger set of dynamics that are not captured within the bounds of their research questions and methodologies. Even scientists wishing to be more reflective of the social implications of their work find themselves leaving the terrain in which they are comfortable, to enter realms within which they have no particular qualifications beyond that of an ordinary citizen. What is a responsible scientist to do? This Salon will be led by a policy scientist who has written about the ways in which scientific research in socially complex settings can go awry – specifically research on lead paint and its abatement – and a biologist identifying lead-dependent genetic changes in fruit flies, who just re-entered the domain of human research. After elucidating examples of the quandaries of scientists contemplating the relationship between research and its socio-political context, we will draw on the experiences and insights of participants to develop a suite of strategies (both at the individual and the institutional level) that can support an appropriate place for science in the world.

Notes:

§What can our community do to move this topic forward? Who would we want to interact with to share our broader views on this topic for the rightful place of science?

§STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

oCan’t say everything to everyone: Must consider who we are communicating to

oStrategic disengagement

§How can we achieve this goal?

oCommunication: two-way; how to appreciate the complexity

oEducation

oArticulate the outcomes associated with various value sets

§Themes:

oHubris and Arrogance versus Humility

oScience over-reaching its bounds – and promising more than it delivers (e.g. CA stem cell research promises results within five years)

Major Consensus Agenda Item:

§In moments of engagement between scientists and media/decision-makers, how well do structures and institutions get the most out of science and keep science in its rightful place?

§Teach science to span socio-technological MOMENTS OF ENGAGEMENT

§The role of the scientist must EVOLVE (transparent values, say what you know and what you don’t know, etc)

Other Agenda Items:

§Change National Education Standards: Science instruction for grades K-12 will be 75% genuine inquiry and 25% other areas (concepts, definitions, reading); also, all science is taught by specialist instructors at all levels

§Basic science education in public policy and administration training as well as basic communication training in science

§University should play a role in creating a base for framing and contextualizing science

§Continuous education on opposing viewpoints for all stakeholders to diminish complacency

§Increase the number of collaborative forums to encourage the growth of diverse networks

§Teach science in elementary school: focus on the fun of scientific inquiry

§Research the impact and outcomes of different kinds of communication

§Influence the discourse in on this topic to recognize that science is NOT monolithic

§Analyze the ability of a political institution to process information provided by people qualified as having scientific expertise to identify how that information is received and utilized

Scientists should:

§Recognize when less is more

§Develop processes to determine relevant role: discern whether or not the topic is controversial and act accordingly, seek out continuous education and training

§Receive media training to learn how to covey a clear message, how to determine their appropriate role in the discourse, and how to speak English not just technical jargon

§Strategic contraction of science and education: build on their strengths, test out how to communicate complexity, and become more transparent in their values

§Learn to seek and reflect on their work

§Learn to speak in clear plain English about their work

]]>http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?feed=rss2&p=7490T5 The Public Voice of Science and the Denial of Climate Changehttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=742
http://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=742#commentsFri, 02 Jul 2010 18:36:53 +0000Cathy Arnoldhttp://cspo.events.asu.edu/?p=742Led by: Prajwal Kulkarni
Description: Evidence from numerous scientific disciplines has painted what should be a convincing picture of anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Yet, well-funded and organized campaigns have managed to undermine public confidence. This table top salon discusses how contrarians are often given false credibility on ACC because science communication rarely addresses the methodological diversity that exists in science. The public instead hears scientists speak of “the” scientific method and “the” way that science works. This misconception of science as homogeneous creates a situation where scientists are considered an authority on almost any scientific topic. Rather than portraying a single approach to science, emphasizing its methodological diversity might better communicate the key idea that scientists are not knowledgeable about all of science. The public might be more inclined to believe in ACC if they only listened to scientists from the field that do the day to day work and understand the complexities.

Agenda:
There are several areas ripe for future research on this topic.

First, there is an acute need to understand the profiles of climate change denialism—what are the different types of people, within industry, government and in the public who deny that climate change is happening, and what kinds of views do they hold? One could imagine a taxonomy of individuals based upon their level of knowledge on the subject, occupation, ability to lead decisions on the issue of climate change, and the profile they hold in society; likewise, a taxonomy of different views on climate change could be constructed that takes into account the nuances of specific views, for example: “climate change is anthropogenic, destructive, and irreversible; attempting to affect change would threaten economic interests, therefore we should take no policy action to alleviate it.”

Second, what ways can scientists learn about the social and political contexts of their work in order to better navigate the climate change discourse? Traditional institutional norms encourage the insularity of scientists as specialists so that they might advance knowledge creation within disciplines, but this may have the effect of making them less adept at communicating their views to a skeptical public that is unfamiliar with their ideas. What are the basic communications competencies that scientists need to acquire in order to communicate to the broader public, and what are the best ways to facilitate the adoption of effective public communication methods?

Third, does public opinion have a meaningful effect upon creating public policy to respond to climate change? Especially in an international context, diplomatic policy can be crafted in back rooms where transparency is minimal and decisions are of great consequence. The diplomat may feel compelled to make decisions that she deems in the national interest, but which could have the effect of alienating segments of the public. Will the public accept these decisions, and what are the consequences if it does not?

Fourth, what are the potential sources of cultural authority in the climate change discourse? For example, if a “scientist” denies or affirms that climate change is taking place, what legitimizes her as an authority on the subject? Understanding the ways in which the public distinguishes between different representations of credibility within the scientific world could affect how scientists and the institutions they affiliate with choose to communicate with the public to maximize their legitimacy.

Finally, how do the political affiliations of scientists themselves affect their own views on climate change? Different scientific disciplines may draw men and women of specific political ilk, and the beliefs of individual scientists could shape how scientific discourse, including on the topic of climate change, is shaped. Understanding the political orientation of different scientific communities may help to shape discourse and outcomes related to climate change science and policy.